Failure of excitatory conditioning to extinguish the influence of a conditioned inhibitor.

1991 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 519-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Pearce ◽  
Paul N. Wilson
1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (1b) ◽  
pp. 45-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Pearce ◽  
Anthony Montgomery ◽  
Anthony Dickinson

In Experiment I, rabbits received training to establish a clicker as a conditioned inhibitor. In a subsequent test phase this stimulus was used as a signal for shock either to the eye reinforced during initial training or to the opposite eye. Learning to the clicker was slower in both conditions than in the appropriate control groups. The second experiment replicated the results of those subjects trained and tested with opposite eyes and ruled out the possibility that the slower learning was due to the effects of latent inhibition. Experiment III demonstrated that excitatory conditioning to a clicker to one eye facilitated future excitatory conditioning to that stimulus to the opposite eye. These results are consistent with the view that inhibitory and excitatory conditioning both involve the acquisition of a general, motivational conditioned response which is capable of mediating the transfer of conditioning across different response systems.


1982 ◽  
Vol 34 (3b) ◽  
pp. 149-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Pearce ◽  
D. J. Nicholas ◽  
Anthony Dickinson

In each of three experiments two groups of rats received inhibitory conditioning to one stimulus. Prior to a test phase of excitatory conditioning to this stimulus, one group was repeatedly exposed to the inhibitory stimulus by itself while the other group received no such exposure. Excitatory conditioning occurred most slowly in the group which received the exposure training. The first experiment indicated that this difference was not due to the exposure treatment enhancing the inhibitory properties of the stimulus. The results of Experiment III confirmed this conclusion and also indicated that the differences between the two groups during testing were due to differences in the associability of the inhibitory stimulus.


1981 ◽  
Vol 33 (2b) ◽  
pp. 77-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. A. Gaffan ◽  
M. M. Hart

The approach-withdrawal behaviour of pigeons to a red keylight was measured under three conditions; a negative contingency (NC) between keylight and food reinforcement, a CI or conditioned inhibition procedure where the keylight was non-reinforced in compound with a tone which was reinforced when presented alone, and a random control procedure (RC). The keylight-food contingencies in CI and NC were identical, and keylight and food presentation frequency were the same in all conditions. Subsequently the effect of adding the red keylight to a novel CS+ during or after excitatory conditioning was examined (summation test of inhibition). The inhibitory procedures, CI and NC, generally yielded similar functions for the acquisition of withdrawal, and the results of the withdrawal and summation measures were positively correlated. The implications of the results for theories of the acquisition and behavioural action of conditioned inhibitors are discussed.


1982 ◽  
Vol 34 (3b) ◽  
pp. 163-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Cotton ◽  
Glyn Goodall ◽  
N. J. Mackintosh

Five experiments, all employing conditioned suppression in rats, studied inhibitory conditioning to a stimulus signalling a reduction in shock intensity. Experimental subjects were conditioned to a tone signalling a 1·0 mA shock and to a tone-light compound signalling a 0·4 mA shock. On a summation test in which it alleviated the suppression maintained by a third stimulus also associated with the 1·0 mA shock, the light was established as a conditioned inhibitor. Retardation tests gave ambiguous results: the light was relatively slow to condition when paired, either alone or in conjunction with another stimulus, with the 0·4 mA shock, but the difference from a novel stimulus control group was not significant. Two final experiments found no evidence at all of inhibition on a summation test in which the light was presented in conjunction with a stimulus that had itself been associated with the 0·4 mA shock. The results of these experiments have implications for the question of what animals learn during the course of inhibitory conditioning.


2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (41) ◽  
pp. 8822-8830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Yun Chang ◽  
Matthew P.H. Gardner ◽  
Jessica C. Conroy ◽  
Leslie R. Whitaker ◽  
Geoffrey Schoenbaum

Author(s):  
Unai Liberal ◽  
Gabriel Rodríguez ◽  
Geoffrey Hall

AbstractIn Experiment 1, rats received 16 nonreinforced trials of exposure to a flavor (A) that was subsequently used as the conditioned stimulus in flavor-aversion conditioning. In the critical condition, Flavor A was presented in compound with a different novel flavor on each of the eight daily trials. This treatment produced latent inhibition, in that this preexposure retarded conditioning just as did 16 trials with A alone. Rats in the control conditions, given no preexposure or exposure just to the sequence of novel flavors, learned readily. Experiment 2 examined the effects of these forms of preexposure on performance on a summation test, in which Flavor A was presented in compound with a separately conditioned flavor (X). The preexposure procedure in which A was presented along with novel flavors rendered A effective in inhibiting the response conditioned to X on that test. The conclusion, that this form of training can establish the target stimulus as a conditioned inhibitor, is predicted by the account of latent inhibition put forward by Hall and Rodríguez (2010) which proposes that the latent inhibition effect is a consequence both of a reduction in the associability of the stimulus and of a process of inhibitory associative learning that opposes the initial expectation that a novel event will be followed by some consequence.


1994 ◽  
Vol 74 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1363-1381
Author(s):  
Paul L. DeVito ◽  
Laurie Cashman ◽  
Kimberly Petka

The effect of prior excitatory conditioning to a stimulus not included in the compound conditioning phase of the typical blocking experiment was assessed in three CER studies. The first experiment, in which rat subjects received A +, C +, or a combination of A + /C + trials prior to AB + conditioning, showed that A + /C + or C + training produced as robust blocking as A + training relative to a control group with no prior conditioning. A second experiment which was designed to assess the role of background cues in mediating the blocking effect indicated that background cues were not responsible for the A + or C + effects, while a third experiment showed these same effects were not mediated by stimulus generalization. The findings of these experiments are interpreted in the context of pseudoconditioning-induced rehearsal of a US representation in short-term memory.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document